The Russellville Democrat., 1887-02-16
SENATOR BERRY's SPEECH.
On Senator Beclx's Bill to Pre- vent Congressmen From Act ing as Attorneys for Ger
 tam Glasses of Railways.

f
 Senator Berry of Arkansas said: There is law upon the statute book prohibiting members of congress from practicing in the court of claims, and l never heard any one doubt it's constltutionality or question it's pol. icy.
 There is another law which prohib it's any member of congress from practicing before any of the depart ments, and, so far as know, no one has sought to repeal that law or eyade it's provisions. If members of congress can be prohibited from prac ticing before the court of claims and before the departments, why shall they not be prohibited from appear ing as attorneys for railroads holding grants of land from the government and railroads that have received pecuniary aid from the government railroads that are largely interested in legislatation that is now pending in one or both houses of congress.
 Can it be truthfully sad that a member of congress who is employed and paid by these railroad compa nies, who occupies to them the inti- mate relation that exists between client and attorney, who constantly receives from the officers of the com pany the most confidential conmuni cations, one whose interest is iden tified with that of the company-can it be sad of such member that he is entirely free from all bias prejudice, is wholly impartial and can judge as fairly as to the rights of the gov erment and the railroad company as one who does not sustain this rela tion?
 We will take for instance the Union Pacific, which has bill pend ing here to postpone for long term of years the payment of it's indebt edness to the government of the United States. Would senator or member who is employed by that company, with thelr money in his pocket, be in condition to judge fairly and honestly as to the merits of that bill2 Or suppose some member of con gress is attotney for the Northern Pa cific Railroad company and that he should be called upon and it would become his duty under his retainer to contest the rights of settlers claiming lands under the homestead or pre- mption laws, and basing their claims upon the theory that the railroad company forfeited all right by not complying with the terms ol the grant, and after trial and after such contest in the courts will such attorney be competent and impar- tial judge to sit as member of con gross and pass upon the question whether or not congress has the right and the power to forfeit all lands not earned within the tune specified in the grantf
 No man can serve two masters. No man can while acting as the at torney of a railroad company be an impartial judge between that com pany and the government.
 If it could be truly said that mem bers of congress are so far superior to the rest of mankind that they can take S10,000 or S20,000 year from the Union Pacific or the Northern Pacific Railroad company and not be influenced by it, that they can go into the courts of the country and argue one day as to the rights and powers and privileges of these roads and the next day as member ot congress fairly and honestly judge between these roads and the gOver- ment upon q question involving per, haps the same identical point argued in the court; If it be true that they can do all this, unfortunately the people of the country will not believe it to be true: and it seems to me that if members of congress hope to wield any influence for good they must not only be pure, but they must be believed by the people to be pure and free from any suspicion of being influenced by improper motives.